Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC)
Since social phenomena are complicated to measure, some strategies rely on surveying experts: individuals with specialized knowledge of one or more countries who can synthesize multiple sources of information (Hooghe et al. 2010).
Expert surveys face two primary types of error: systematic and random error (Maestas 2018):
Sources of random error (Budge 2000; Martínez-Coma and Van Ham 2015):
Individual cognitive and judgment biases (e.g. experts might rely in different heuristics, have ideological leanings or vary in their knowledge).
Political and social context under which the evaluation is made (e.g. autocracies can punish certain political orientations).
Some concepts, due its nature, are inherently complex (e.g. political ideology, government effectiveness, political polarization).
Regarding context’s characteristics, random biases have been extensively explored in Europe (Bakker et al. 2014), but less outside of it. We can expect that the type of political regime affects:
About the unit’s characteristics, non-significant relationship between party size and experts’ disagreement (Marks et al. 2007; Steenbergen and Marks 2007). But:
More information (resources, media attention) on large parties than small parties.
But more ambiguity in catch-all parties - strategies more difficult to evaluate with precision.
Thus, more precision in “medium” parties?
But though small party units may lack of resources, some can be easier to evaluate if have enough stability and longevity in the party system. One can difference between:
About the policy dimension, not yet.
Figure 4: State and non-state wide parties
Figure 5: Continuous (V-Dem) and dichotomous (DCD) measures of democracy
Figure 6: Pairwise correlations grid
Jordi Mas - Understanding political knowledge